TehPers

This. A charge isn’t a conviction, though.

Plausable deniability might help you here as long as you can think of a valid reason why you had that code on the note. It could be as simple as “this is the code I needed to remember for this one game” or something too. As long as you don’t tell them that the note contains the code to your phone, you can pretend the note contains a code of some other value instead later on and let them shoot themselves in the foot.

As a general rule, most lawyers would tell you if you are under arrest to say nothing more than what you are required to by law. Since this is at a border, it gets weird, but that’s what makes this case unusual as well. Under normal circumstances, they might seize the phone as evidence, but saying nothing might result in them wiping the device themselves before they ever get a warrant for the passcode.

He could just as easily argue he was forced to give the password under duress and accidentally gave them the wrong password.

It’s not really a case of duress. Legal searches are also done under duress, and you can’t just argue to a judge “well I got nervous and shredded the documents”.

What it really boils down to is whether border agents can search a phone without a warrant on entry, or whether the search was illegal. As part of it, they also need to decide whether a person has their Miranda rights during entry to a country. The answer, in my opinion, should be obvious (the alternative is you have no rights on entry), but with the current courts, who knows what they’ll decide.

Also highly illegal.

This is where the question about Miranda rights comes in, and whether the question of whether the constitution grants rights during entry comes in as well. If you have no rights, then it can be argued you have no right to demand a lawyer either.

This case is really strange.

The case raises questions about which constitutional rights apply at US borders, including international airports, where authorities have broader search powers.

On the one hand, destroying evidence during an investigation or which someone believes might be linked to one is a generally bad idea. However, to me it seems like the border agents should have had no right to search the phone without a warrant. Seize maybe, but not search. If the search was illegal and the case dismissed (especially since Tunick was not read Miranda which seems to imply there was no arrest?), then I think it would be hard to argue that any evidence was destroyed because the investigation itself would have been performed illegally.

In any case, doing this in a legal search of the phone (with a warrant) is most likely illegal.

Nah they’re ugly af.

If you wrap them (like you should), then you can make them look cool though. Some of my favorites that I’ve seen are bright pink, yellow, and various wraps covered in decals.

Without wrapping them, they look like scrap metal on wheels.

Your phone stores the code on the device and does facial recognition locally. Apps on your phone only receive that data if they explicitly request your camera and perform the recognition themselves.

This is vastly different than sending Google a video of your face that they save on their servers and use to analyze future selfie videos.

But assuringly its just an encrypted passcode created with an algorithm using measured face data.

From the article:

Selfie videos can be used for login purposes, to verify your age for accessing certain account features, and to create an AI avatar.

It’s not just an encrypted passcode.

While I agree with your points and sentiment, the US civil rights laws (including the Civil Rights Act) are being continuously torn apart by billionaires and religious lunatics, so maybe not the best example.

Regardless, there are plenty of examples of laws succeeding in bettering the status quo going even as far back as Babylon.

From what I can see (and via translation), their published reasoning is, among other reasons, to protect national security and social interests.

So what are the risks that China is worried about to social interests? Well, we can find that in their AI Safety Governance Framework. Jumping specifically to the risks regarding anthropomorphic AIs (ethical risks):

(d) Addiction and dependence on anthropomorphic interaction

AI products based on anthropomorphic interaction foster users’ emotional dependence and influence their behavior, creating ethical risks.

They conveniently list some of their concerned outcomes from influencing their behavior, including disrupting conventional views on childbirth:

(e) Challenges to existing social order

The development and application of AI brings profound changes to production tools and relations, accelerating the restructuring of traditional industries, disrupting conventional views on employment, childbirth, and education, and challenging the established social order.

So did China ban these AIs over birth rates? It seems to have been part of the discussion, at the very least. Like all things in life, it requires more nuance than just “birth rates” to explain. However, the concerns stated by Matt Sheehan (who seems to be the source for the “birth rates” claim that the news outlets are going with) provides more nuance in his explanation as well:

“They don’t like the idea of a large portion of their population being in deep emotional relationships with chatbots that could take them out of the marriage market, that could have negative psychological impacts on them, that could lead to addiction, dependency and a whole bunch of other social ills,” said Matt Sheehan, who studies Chinese AI at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.

All this to say that yes, the explanation that it’s about birth rates is an easy to consume concept for Western audiences.

But also, yes it’s a true concern that the Chinese government has specifically linked to anthropomorphic AIs.

So… China didn’t ban relationship bots? Or are you saying that the article is written in a way to condemn China’s decision to ban them?

What? You don’t normally call capitalists “Tankie”. That would be a weird insult for one, to say the least. Usually that term is reserved for a certain kind of pro-authoritarian “communist” (in quotes of course because I don’t believe it’s actual communism).

Anyway, not sure what any of this has to do with the post. What a weird comment thread…